|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Nov 29, 2006 20:25:35 GMT -5
This is from the Massapequa post. I don't believe I have enough information just yet to form an opinion. Anyone have anything they want to add? With the district telling us that the enrollment is rising, is downsizing the right move to make?
I feel bad for the residents of the Packard area. I think there is the potential of increased weekend traffic, increased teenage drinking and loitering and potentially increased vandalism....unless it becomes a very secured location.
Town and Plainedge School District mull land swap by Tiffany Elliott
The Plainedge School District's Packard Middle School is too big. The Town of Oyster Bay's south annex is too small. Now officials from the school and the Town are working on an agreement that may be just right.
Under a proposal moving forward, the Town will assume title to the Packard Middle School, demolish it and build a new building for its offices. In return, the Town will give title to the Town's south annex in Massapequa, and some cash in a swap that Town Supervisor John Venditto described as a creative way of saving money and reducing development.
"This shows how well different layers of government can work together to solve a problem," said Venditto in discussing the deal, which has still not been finalized. "We needed more elbow room for our employees and the school district was willing to downsize."
The Town will give an as-yet to be determined amount of cash to the school district to make up the difference between the value of the the Town Hall building, at 977 Hicksville Road, and the more valuable Packard school at 331 North Idaho Avenue. The Packard school has been vacant for two years with the district paying to maintain and heat it. Thus, Plainedge School District Superintendent Dr. John Richman said he agrees that the arrangement is beneficial to both sides.
"I think this is a win-win situation because the Town won't have to build a new building and it's a win for the community because we won't have to pay to maintain the building," said Richman. He added that the district will generate income by renting out the old Town Hall building, which was originally Plainedge's James E. Picken Elementary School in the 1980s.
Although the plan needs to be voted on by Plainedge residents some time in March, the Town has been getting its affairs in order, which according to Venditto looks favorable as per his discussions with residents.
"We have agreed, as per residents' requests, that no lights will be installed on the field so the glare doesn't bother them and that there will be no vehicle maintenance at Packard, as there was at Town hall," said Venditto.
At hearings held during the month of October, funds for the switch were okayed as were plans to address some environmental issues such as the removal of an oil tank, and the repair of the slate roof.
According to Venditto, Packard School would cost more to update than tearing it down and rebuilding a new structure. Because the time-line targets the spring of 2009 as the opening of the new Town Hall South, the Town plans to lease the property from the school district in the interim.
Richman said the school was "shoddily" constructed in the mid 1960s.
"It was made from free form concrete, which isn't good for construction in this climate," he said. It's a high maintenance building and we'll be happy to be rid of it."
In addition to the new space, the Town will be putting in at least two new baseball fields and one all-purpose field at Packard.
Town Hall South houses the Town's Community & Youth Services Division, Office of Employment & Training, their Parks Department and the Town Clerk's annex office, all of which will remain as part of the new building. Talks will continue with residents, the dates of which will be announced by the school board, according to Richman.
"I think the message to residents is that when everyone comes to the table, government works," said Venditto, who said the Town's mantra in this case was consolidation and practicality.
|
|
|
Post by rinx on Nov 29, 2006 21:29:56 GMT -5
What happened to the town sending out mailings as promised to residents letting us know what was going on with Packard? They promised to keep us abreast of what their plans were. I know of nobody that has received any information from them.
There is so much BS from both Richman and the politicians that the gas from the stench could power NYC for 10 years.
Did Richman really say "The town will not to build a new building"? Huh? The article says they will tear down Packard and put up a new building. WTF?
|
|
|
Post by thewildrover on Nov 30, 2006 20:57:31 GMT -5
Hope all is well with all,
G.P.
It sounds like you certainly have a strong basis for an opinion with your acknowledged concerns with regards to the Packard/Picken Swap.
You ask, I add:
Downsizing is a relative term in this regard. What would be the cost to the District, (read US), if in-fact more space is needed for our students? Would it be more efficient to overhaul Packard or overhaul Picken for our kids use?
Both locations have adequate space for the speculative increased enrollment. The District so far has said that Picken is the easier fix. I believe their explanations in this respect, so far, are credible.
As a resident of the Packard area (my kids were walkers when they attended and I walked there to watch their games), I do share some of those concerns, the weekend traffic issue is there whether the change is made or not.
There is a steady stream coming and going of soccer, softball and little league athletes and their resident parents.
I do LOVE the idea of having a state of the art playground/park and athletic facility for our children and grandchildren to utilize.
Especially if the District and Town can present that the cost to the residents of the Plainedge School District is NIL!
As for “increased teenage drinking”, unfortunately that is going to happen whether there is a new park or not. The kids who do, will. They will find a house were parents allow it (sad!), a street corner or a new park. Honestly, an abandoned school is probably more attractive to the drinkers then a well lit, well utilized park.
Kind of like the Yogi’ism- “Nobody goes there any more, it’s too crowded”.
There are many details of this transaction that need to come to the forefront, especially the cost, or non-cost, to the Districts residents.
The Wild One’s humble opinion, of course,
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Dec 1, 2006 8:53:42 GMT -5
Wild:
Based on the information that I have at this time, it may appear that my opinion is leaning toward one direction. However, I've been accused of (in the past) of being close-minded. So, I am trying to get as much information as possible about this deal.
Based on what information we have received to date (mind you, not much) it makes the task of keeping an open mind very difficult. Unfortunately, we are all on a "need to know basis" when it comes to information from the district. How much money is involved in the deal? Where will that money be spent? Will it be recommended that it be placed in someone's retirement account? Will it be used for the kids? It should be
I too love the idea of a state-of-art playing field. My only concern is....at what cost? Will we (as a district) regret this sometime down the road when more space is needed and another bond is proposed to build onto the Pickens building. A surprise increase in enrollment has already come about in Eastplain.
Many questions....few answers.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Dec 20, 2006 21:30:45 GMT -5
From the 12-12-06 meeting minutes:
Dr. Richman provided an overview and update of recent developments taking place with regard to the Packard/Picken transaction. The Town of Oyster Bay will pay the district $1.5M for Packard along with an exchange of the properties. A draft of the sale and purchase agreement is being finalized. The Town is working to develop the fields at John West through an Intermunicipal Agreement.
|
|
|
Post by momma3 on Dec 21, 2006 7:45:06 GMT -5
Hello all, I was wondering if anyone had any information as to what will happen with the wrestling room at Packard. I have a High School wrestler and am interested in what will happen with that. Thanks as usual for the info!!
|
|
|
Post by plaintalker on Dec 21, 2006 17:40:00 GMT -5
I am very cautious about this whole Packard/Pitkin swap. From day one I have heard nothing but negative things about Packard but have not been able to verify them all. I know it has needed constant repairs but I don't see how Pitkin can ever be converted into a school in the future if we need so. Look how many houses are up for sale latetly. Our taxes are so high that our seniors are selling left and right. It is only common sense when these houses do sell that families with kids are going to move in. Why not, we are a very desirable district now and are in great demand in spite of the high taxes. I'm not a lover of selling a bigger property to replace it with a smaller property which will only serve as a central office and not a place we can easily expand our school space if necessary. Also, keep this in mind, I'm not a parent of a sports child, but the Town has promised in meetings that we will have first shot at the fields and it is supposed to be stated in the contract. Does anyone know what they mean by first shot. Keep in mind that this will be a Town field, Farmingdale, Bethpage, Massapequa, etc also have a right to use these fields. What does 1st shot mean, once a week twice a week, every day that we want them? Let's face it there is a field shortage in this town, I'm sure if you speak with the great people that run our sports programs they can tell you they can probably use the fields every day and still not have enough fields. I'm not sold yet, I have to hear a lot more info before I vote yes on this one. Any feed back would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Dec 21, 2006 20:18:21 GMT -5
Plainetalker:
I too am NOT sold on this. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I don't understand why we would trade a larger plot of land for a smaller plot. Didn't we just give approval for an expansion onto Eastplain? Why would we give up any space then?
You're right. Plainedge is growing and we will need the room. I would like a nice new, high tech field as much as the next person. However, that field won't help the kids learn when classrooms become over-crowded. Then, we'll get hit with another bond to build a new school.
I would hope that the school district distributes all of the CORRECT information about this arrangement so that we can make an educated decision. Although, I'm sure their communications will be painted with half a paint brush (if past history is any indication on how poorly they communicate with the community).
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jan 30, 2007 22:37:15 GMT -5
WOW...these boards have been DEAD. Anyone still there?
Anyway, this is from the latest BOE meeting minutes:
Dr. Richman reported that he, Ms. P’Simer and our attorney met with Town of Oyster Bay officials and their attorney prior to the Holiday break, regarding some unresolved environmental issues at Picken. He added that there are currently four firms working to resolve these issues.
Does anyone know what these "unresolved environmental issues" are? The last I heard was that the initial reports showed everything was OK. Anyone have an update?
|
|
|
Post by Say What Again on Jan 31, 2007 15:29:28 GMT -5
People not cleaning up after their dogs? Maybe too many ducks leaving bombs.
Someone spoke of overcrowding in schools...and there was mention of insane property taxes as well which reflect the many houses up for sale.
What I wonder about all that is, how many younger couples are forced to sublet their upstairs or their basements to other young couples who cant afford a home of their own, and now there are two school attending families living in one house with only one of those families paying school tax.
I completely understand that people have to do what they have to do, but I would imagine that someone in legislation is capable of adding 2 and 2 and noticing that it is not equaling out to 4.
Property tax MUST BE DEALT WITH along with pricing - Ive been living around here for over half my life and have more or less come to the realization that the best I am ever going to hope for is renting. Chances are high indeed that when my kids get old enough, that they are going to leave the state, as I cant say as I blame them, because there is little to no economic growth here besides shopping malls and department stores, but we all know we cant even remotely think about maintaining a home on that kind of income.
So what do we have? a larger plot getting traded in for a smaller one - and what happens to the larger one then? build up 50 more homes to compete with the ones that already cant get sold, that will house 70 or more families working off the 50 tax payments being made from them?
Im ranting - the whole situation has me to the point of not thinking straight about what we're even talking about here anymore
|
|
|
Post by mythreekids on Feb 1, 2007 0:34:34 GMT -5
Hi Go-
To answer your question about the "environmental issue" at Picken- I believe it has something to do with the diesel fuel station that is on that property.....
|
|
|
Post by patriot2415 on Feb 1, 2007 9:49:41 GMT -5
I have a question and a comment: While passing Packard the other day, I noticed a sign out front for a pre-school. Is there one in that building now? Why is it safe for 3 year olds but not for older kids? Comments: 1. perhaps if the building was not left to deteriorate over the years we would not be in this position. When my kids were there I wondered why the cracked stairs in the front were not repaired. Why when you looked into the rooms from the front the blinds/shades were hanging off the windows? How knows what else was not repaired when needed. 2. When I was president of the youth Lacrosse league, we went to the town and asked if we could turn an unused sump into a field for the community. We were told we could only if EVERY HOUSE AFFECTED SAID YES ! Is every household around Packard agreeing? Double standard???
|
|
|
Post by rinx on Feb 4, 2007 10:22:25 GMT -5
Yep, there is a daycare in Packard. Obviously, the building is safe enough for 3 yr olds. We were sold a bill of goods IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by pedgegirl on Feb 4, 2007 11:56:42 GMT -5
I have read this site for many months. Thanks for all the informative details on many issues.
As fas as having been given a bill of goods, I attended ALL the meetings regarding Packard/new Middle School way back when. Whether people agreed or disagreed, and I, too, had many questions, I do feel that a great effort was made to inform the community.
We were never told Packard was UNSAFE for kids (my kids were there at the time, so of course this was of great importance to me - not only for others' children, but for my own). Yes, there were many repairs needed, but kids were NEVER in ANY type of imminent danger at all.
What prompted all the discussion back then was that the student population was hitting over 100% capacity for the size of the building (state guidelines were, if I remember correctly that a school should be at at 85% capacity to allow for safe passing in hallways, etc.). We needed to add on rooms, do repairs, etc., not only to accommodate the increasing population, but to accommodate the myriad changes in programs that were added since the building was built in 1965.
Back in 1965, there were no Special Education classes, Science labs were not equipped as they are needed to be now for our curriculum, there were no computer labs, nor was there room in classrooms for a bank of computers....to name just a few changes. In addition, the building was poorly designed for a school. Maybe it was architecturally interesting for the times, but poor for traffic flow, supervision, etc. But, what was done was done, and it had been many years ago, so what was the sense in rehashing what the community should have said way back then?
At those meetings, there were bids discussed as to what renovation and new additions would cost vs. what a new building would cost. A new building would meet state requirements (obviously the old part of Packard would have been grandfathered, but any new construction would not) for classroom size, hallway size, lab size, basically hundreds of details have to be approved by the state. The cost between new and renovation/adding on was not that different - did not make sense to add on.
It was always explained that the building would be "safe" to be used for many different purposes, just that it did need repairs and was not conducive to instruction and for the population today. The preschool would not be there if they did not feel it was safe. Because it is OK for their program, though, does not mean it is conducive for a Middle School program anymore.
Is the building now a giant eyesore? Yes, it is. I am not sure what the resolution to that problem is. There are too many questions regarding the Packard/Picken deal. I do not live in that area, but friends do, and they are concerned about countywide events being held on those fields and the traffic they will bring. I was not sure if those fields were being renovated for those purposes, too, or just for our local teams, etc. Does anyone know the answer to that? They have a legitimate concern.
|
|
|
Post by rinx on Feb 4, 2007 12:27:27 GMT -5
I too attended all the Packard meetings. Yes, they didn't come out and say it was unsafe. They insinuated it. They told us they were afraid of the concrete that was falling apart/loose hurting someone. Has that changed? I don't think so. There are still spots that can be seen where that is the case.
Anyone know if the roof is still leaking? Friends of mine who live across the street from Packard told me that they did see people working on the roof for awhile. It was also in the minutes of the BOE that the company that repaired the roof was going to be giving the district the supplies and that the district would supply the manpower for the faulty repairs made prior.
If all or most of the issues were fixed, then why aren't we utilizing Parkard instead of expanding Eastplain? Alot of us would like to know.
|
|